A Sunshine settlement

Friday

Nov 1, 2013 at 12:01 AM

In an editorial Sunday, we urged the Sarasota City Commission to settle a lawsuit -- which alleges that two commissioners violated the state Sunshine Law -- as quickly as possible in order to limit taxpayers' financial exposure.

In meetings today, the commissioners could have an opportunity to responsibly settle -- or, at least, lay the foundation for such a settlement.

The plaintiffs -- Citizens for Sunshine, a nonprofit group represented by a Sarasota law firm -- should give commissioners a chance to accept a reasonable settlement that protects the public's interests.

Among those interests are: avoiding expensive litigation that could have been prevented; promoting open government; protecting citizens' access to elected and appointed officials.

The case at hand

The lawsuit alleges that Commissioners Suzanne Atwell and Susan Chapman violated the Sunshine Law by attending, along with four high-ranking city officials, a private meeting with downtown merchants on the hot topic of homelessness in Sarasota.

The Sunshine Law requires that a "meeting" involving two or more elected officials from the same body be conducted openly and publicly.

The meeting with downtown business owners was not open to the public or publicized in advance.

Here is the Florida attorney general's long-standing interpretation of the law and what qualifies as a "meeting":

"The Sunshine Law applies to all discussions or deliberations as well as the formal action taken by a board or commission. The law, in essence, is applicable to any gathering, whether formal or casual, of two or more members of the same board or commission to discuss some matter on which foreseeable action will be taken by the public board or commission. ..."

The lawsuit contends that Atwell and Chapman spoke at the meeting about issues related to homelessness. Notes from the meeting refer to the topic in general and highlight "a major concern" -- the possibility that a consultant for the city and Sarasota County will recommend the creation of a new shelter in the municipality. That vital issue will certainly be considered, soon, by the City Commission.

Chapman disputes that a discussion covered by the law occurred. Her counsel and Atwell's lawyer both say the lawsuit overreaches.

In an email after the session with merchants, Chapman told a constituent "there was a meeting last Thursday with area merchants to discuss the issue." In another email, directed to the meeting organizer, Chapman wrote: "Let's have more of those meetings, so we can make sure we share information, strategies, and solutions."

What's more, City Manager Tom Barwin stated that the meeting provided an opportunity "to build a coalition to support our homelessness efforts."

Those statements would weaken the city's defense, if it chose to fight the lawsuit.

City Attorney Robert Fournier has publicly stated that he would defend the lawsuit or negotiate a settlement, depending on the City Commission's guidance.

A principled settlement is a better option.

The lawsuit and an early-settlement offer from the plaintiffs is unusual in that it names Atwell and Chapman individually as defendants and demands that they, rather than the city, pay legal fees. The initial offer also includes details about providing advance notice of meetings with two or more commissioners present.

The demands on Atwell and Chapman complicate resolution of the case, in part because they have a conflict of interest in the outcome. Plus, it's likely the city government would ultimately be responsible for paying the commissioners' legal fees.

A way out

A principled settlement would, we believe, drop Atwell and Chapman as individual plaintiffs. An agreement would not require the two commissioners, or the entire City Commission, to admit a violation of the law. But a deal should have the city pay the plaintiffs' fees to date and provide a framework for avoiding a repeat.

State law already requires that many types of official meetings be advertised in advance. However, the city could reasonably establish a system for providing notice about other meetings that could be covered by the Sunshine Law. Procedures for recording the sessions or taking minutes could be established as well.

There would be details to work out, but creating a relatively simple structure should be within the city's capacity.

It's important to recognize that attorney general opinions and court cases have stated that notices, record-keeping and the like are not required for social events, public forums and other events -- so long as the elected officials don't discuss public business.

Application of the Sunshine Law can sometimes be complicated. But, as we wrote previously, the best course for commissioners and staff can be summarized in three words: Follow the law.

And, if there is any doubt about the law, err on the side of openness.

We urge the plaintiffs and the city to reach a settlement that ensures citizen access to officials while respecting the law and erring on the side of openness.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.